The foremost controversial part of Holtz’s time on the virtual stage was when he called former vice-chairman Joe Biden a “Catholic in name only.” this can be a peculiar comment, considering that the U.S. is supposed to be characterized by separation of church and state. Why would Biden’s religious beliefs matter? Holtz was likely attempting to sway Catholic voters towards President Trump, but his words raise questions regarding the role of faith in our secular government. How will we balance freedom of faith in an exceedingly non-religious government? what quantity should our religion influence our dogmas and political systems?
Let’s start with a quick history of the connection between religion and government within the U.S. the sole mention of faith is within the Establishment Clause of the primary Amendment, where it’s stated that “Congress shall make no law respecting an institution of faith.” this suggests that the govt. cannot endorse or prohibit the practice of a specific religion on the local, state, or federal level. While individuals are liberal to express religious beliefs, the govt. cannot. Government action is found unconstitutional unless it’s a major secular purpose, doesn’t have the first effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, and doesn’t foster excessive entanglement between government and religion. If the govt doesn’t meet any of these requirements, then the action is unconstitutional.
The Lemon Test provides guidance on whether the govt. is violating the Establishment Clause. Unconstitutional. Intelligent design being taught publically in schools? Also unconstitutional. The Lemon Test is incredibly clear when government action is directly associated with or affects religion.
In criticizing Biden’s fidelity to Catholicism, Holtz implies that we must always be passing pro-life policies on Catholic ground; otherwise, he wouldn’t be mentioning Biden’s religion. Holtz’s actions are a transparent demonstration of the problem at stake: if a policy or governmental action is motivated and justified by theological virtue, is it constitutional? as an example, if the nation decides to limit access to abortion because the church opposes abortion, is that favoring a selected religion?
The argument might be made that when the govt. starts passing policies due to a selected religion’s beliefs, it’s now imposing religion onto people who don’t seem to be members of that religion. that’s a violation of the Establishment Clause, as nobody during this country has the proper to enforce religion onto others. At the identical time, one’s religious beliefs are very just like other biases that inform decision-making in government, like political ideology, interests of one’s constituents, and other factors. it would be difficult to prove that only supernatural virtue motivated the govt. Even then, the law is unclear if the motivation behind enacting a law is under the identical scrutiny as its direct effect on citizens, because the Lemon Test describes.
Does the post office close on Saturday to watch the Jewish sabbath? Does the stock exchange near observe Muslim prayer? Should our coinage feature the Flying Spaghetti Monster? The founding fathers envisioned a nation where nobody would be persecuted for his or her religion, whether through discrimination or having religion imposed on them. The question is that if belief as motivation for policymaking is taken into account by imposing religion onto others.
If America is to be a nation where the people are sovereign while belonging to different religions, then the official religion of the US should be no religion. At the identical time, we must respect the proper of our elected officials to carry their own beliefs. These are factors we should always be used when evaluating candidates for office or determining the rules for policymaking. I don’t have the solution and that I am sure others don’t, as well, but this is often certainly a crucial discussion to possess. If we wish to inject religion into the political arena, we must be prepared to house its ramifications.
